International Law

Where I’m blogging from

OK everybody, I’m back to give this blog thing a go for another year. Or at least until I collapse. I’ll try to update consistently, but I might not be doing as much commentary as in the past. We’ll see how it goes.

Anyway, I thought I might kick 2008 off with a quick list of principles and random thoughts that might help you get an idea of where it is I’m coming from, or blogging from, in all of this.

(1) Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard. And still mistakes are made. The Innocence Project in the U.S. has cleared more than 200 defendants convicted of serious crimes,
almost all of them involving some form of sexual assault.

(2) I believe privacy is a right that only grows in importance as new technologies come into being to take it away. I look upon ideas like universal citizen DNA databases with horror.

(3) A man’s home is still his castle.

(4) I think sentencing could be stricter in this country, but I don’t like mandates that take away judicial discretion in crafting appropriate sentences.

(5) I also think we still don’t have an effective way to respond to people who are simply never going to reform or can’t be rehabilitated.

(6) Politicians don’t get elected promising to be soft on crime.

(7) I believe in a state-oriented system of criminal justice. Victims should only have a very limited role to play.

(8) Why aren’t all judicial decisions — at least from the appellate courts — freely available on the internet? Or would that upset the reporting services too much? Canada is really doing a bad job with this. Some jurisdictions don’t seem to have any web presence at all. CanLII is a good idea, but the execution has been terrible.

(9) Why the hell are lie detectors still being used?

(10) Contrary to recent comments by the Attorney-General of British Columbia, I don’t think judges “have to be cognizant of what the public thinks of their sentencing process.” They’re job is to apply the law.

(11) Is it just me, or has the Supreme Court been handing down some fuzzy criminal law decisions lately? They seem clear on what they’re not saying, but not as clear on what they are.

(12) Eyewitness identification is not very reliable.

(13) Almost everyone lies under oath.

(14) What limits are there to police powers to search incident to arrest?

(15) Terrorism can be dealt with effectively and responsibly by the criminal justice system. Terrorism is not a threat to Western civilization.

(16) I believe every house in suburban British Columbia has a grow-op in the basement.

(17) I believe pot should be legalized.

(18) Tasers aren’t toys.

(19) Obscenity was a twentieth-century crime. Its (still) impossibly vague definition has been dealt with by the porn industry. Keep the kids and animals out of it and you’re OK. I don’t have any problem with that. I’ve looked at porn on the internet. So have you.

(20) I’m tired of reading hairsplitting appeals of drinking-and-driving cases. These are just cluttering up the justice system, and is there any point of law in this area that needs further clarification?

Now let’s get started . . .

Full post as published by Criminal Review on January 02, 2008 (boomark / email).